Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Taxation - Corporations -Treatment Of Treasury Stock Under The Michigan Privilege Tax Statute, James A. Lee
Taxation - Corporations -Treatment Of Treasury Stock Under The Michigan Privilege Tax Statute, James A. Lee
Michigan Law Review
The recent Louisiana case of State v. Stewart Brothers Cotton Co., lnc. raises the question of the treatment of treasury stock 2 for franchise or privilege tax purposes. In that case the state statute provided that the base for the franchise tax was the corporation's issued and outstanding capital stock, surplus and undivided profits. Stewart Bros. Cotton Co., Inc., had an authorized capital stock of 10,000 shares; in 1930 it purchased 3,333 1/3 shares of this stock, and did not cancel the shares until 1935. The surplus, which was more than sufficient to allow the corporation to purchase the stock …
Constitutional Law - Impairment Of Obligation Of Contracts -Tax On Income Of Bonds Granted Statutory Tax Exemption, Amos J. Coffman
Constitutional Law - Impairment Of Obligation Of Contracts -Tax On Income Of Bonds Granted Statutory Tax Exemption, Amos J. Coffman
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiffs were holders of certain tax exempt bonds issued under authority of the state of Iowa. After the issue of the bonds a statute was passed imposing a "personal net income tax" upon persons resident within the state. The state board of assessment and review assessed this tax against $36,892.75 interest on the tax exempt bonds. The appellants, alleging that such an application of the law impaired the obligations of contracts of exemption, brought suit. Upon a ruling in favor of the assessment by the Iowa Supreme Court, appellants appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Held, the contract …
Receivers-Penalties On Taxes
Michigan Law Review
The recent case of McCormick v. Puritan Coal Mining Co. presents the question whether penalties and interest continue to accrue on delinquent taxes after the date of the appointment of a receiver. The court determined the question in the negative, supporting its decision by authorities which hold that interest does not ordinarily accrue on the debts of an insolvent after the date of the appointment of a receiver. The decision is directly contrary to the established rule that tax penalties and interest continue to accrue, notwithstanding the property has passed into the hands of a receiver.